Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to discuss Bill C-47, an excise tax act. This is a technical bill as has been pointed out by all of the previous speakers. It would impose a levy on spirits, wines and tobacco products but not on beer as the member for Saint--Hyacinthe--Bagot has so eloquently concluded in his lengthy speech. It would defer payment of duties on spirits and wines to the wholesale level, place domestic and imported products on an equal footing, impose tight controls on possession of non duty paid products, et cetera. It is a technical bill, as I say, that would implement some tax changes.
We are talking about changes with respect to spirits, wines, tobacco and ships' stores. In part we are talking about how the government prosecutes and collects taxes on illegal products, contraband tobacco and spirits and how we impact on the smuggling of alcohol when it is ferreted out. The government says the CCRA will improve the service and we certainly hope so. We know the taxpayers at large have concerns. We hope that the improvements to the service will not just be on the government side of things but will impact those who pay the taxes as well because we often do not see that in our constituency work.
We are told that administrative penalties and excise duties will be collected more effectively and efficiently. There is a new framework, added measures and changes to ships' stores. Because of a recent court of appeal decision the ships on the Great Lakes will be eligible for a fuel tax rebate beginning this summer and extending into 2004, which amounts to a transition period. There will be a uniform tax on cigarettes, which I will come back to in a moment, in co-ordination with the provinces and territories, and is restored to the pre-1994 level. Obviously one of the goals, among others, is to reduce tobacco consumption. We are told it is a new, modern legislative framework that addresses the concerns of industry and government.
On the issue of the tobacco tax we know what happened. Earlier the member for Elk Island talked about the taxes going up in 1994, coming down in 1995 and they are now going back up again in this area. There was a reason for it and I think the member would acknowledge that.
At that time there was a major problem in western Canada with contraband tobacco. There was a difference in the price of tobacco products. They were higher in western Canada and lower in Quebec and Ontario. As a result, there was a lucrative market for people who were willing to smuggle products from province to province.
There was a significant problem with the tax levels in western Canada. As a result the excise tax was reduced in 1995 after having been raised in 1994. The problem seems to have abated in recent years and we are now at a uniform tax level. That is commendable.
The member for Elk Island also talked about taxes being a drain on our economy, that the money should be kept in the hands of entrepreneurs and that redistribution does not help and in most cases is detrimental. Our country has a pretty high standard of living, a fairly good quality of life that is recognized, with some exceptions, by the United Nations. It is because of the redistributive effect in Canada. In the past we have tried to make things more equal to make sure there is a basic standard of living that is relatively fair to people in all parts of Canada wherever they may reside and work. It does not work as well as some of us would like to see it work, but over the years it has proved to be successful.
I certainly would disassociate myself from the remarks of the member for Elk Island. However I will not disassociate myself with him when he talks about the use of tobacco and its effects because I think he is spot on there. Although I would note that we restrict advertising on the use of tobacco products, unlike some other jurisdictions. We certainly have a very active program in terms of curtailing youth from taking up smoking. Frankly, raising the price of tobacco products is one way to reducing that and trying to stamp it out.
On the tax level itself, we seem to have in recent decades a preponderance of taxes that are aimed at the personal income tax level. When I was much younger, the money collected annually on corporate taxes amounted to about half of all the money the government collected and spent in a year and the other 50% came from personal income tax. That has shifted very dramatically. Now somewhere in the neighbourhood of 85% of all revenues collected by the federal government comes from the personal income tax and only 15% comes from the corporate tax.
If we had a fairer tax system, some of these increases that we have come to know, expect, anticipate and that hit out in the sin taxes, wine, spirits and tobacco, would not have to be raised to the level they have been. However they are required because a good enough job has not done in ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes as well.
I very much enjoyed the lengthy dissertation from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. As a member of the finance committee, he understands and has followed this issue extremely closely, particularly the fact that beer is the only product in this spirit and alcohol portion of Bill C-47 that is not covered. He went through that in meticulous detail and explained exactly what had transpired.
We saw that being played out in the debate in the House this week. It is regrettable that the chair of the finance committee did not indicate the position she was in, not only the connection in terms of her spouse and where he is employed, but the fact that she has received a fairly generous political donation from the company her husband is employed with in London, namely the John Labatt breweries. That would have been the right and honourable thing for the member for London West to have done, and it is unfortunate that that did not transpire in this instance.
Although we indicated our caucus would be supporting the changes to the bill, we may very well want to reconsider our position in light of what has transpired over the last and recent days.
I do not intend to take very much time this afternoon, but in some of the cases such as tobacco it is important we have that high level of taxation to discourage children and young people from taking up a habit that is costing lives and billions of dollars to our health care system. We need to encourage healthier, happier lifestyles. We would all be better off, smokers and non-smokers alike, if there were far fewer smokers puffing on a regular basis
We will be reconsidering and thinking through our position on the bill very carefully in light of what has transpired and what has come to light in recent days.
